1st CFV : Create unmoderated newsgroup uk.rec.gardening.allotments
The message
from "Anthony" contains these words: "Franz Heymann" wrote in message ... So he did in fact say that QUOTE "Most" believe that "Allotments" are a total different issue to "Gardening" UNQUOTE. Yes but it WASN'T the FULL QUOTE, which affected its meaning. It's my post which you accuse of misquoting, Anthony. If you read it again, you'll see that I quoted Gary's point in full in my previous paragraph. So it's clear there was no intention to conceal its context or alter intended meaning. Again, Quote to me where in the charter of urg. it specifies the discussion of allotments. If it not specified it is strictly speaking OFF topic. ** **That is untrue, the urg charter says the opposite. Here it is; charter of uk.rec.gardening. To discuss gardening issues relevant to the UK. //\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ These will include flowers, shrubs, trees, fruit & vegetables, lawns,houseplants, beneficial insects & animals, soils, composting, design, location, situation, seasons/times, hard structures (paths,greenhouses, cloches, rockeries), ponds, tools & materials, weeds and pests & diseases. ** This is not meant to be an exhaustive list. \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ In the absence of more appropriate, geographically specific newsgroups, discussion of gardening in Eire, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man will also be welcome. Because there are climatic, legal, cultural and other differences, discussion of gardening in other parts of the world is OFF TOPIC (there are other regional gardening newsgroups, and the global rec.gardens, one of which may be more appropriate). Please note that this exclusion relates to subject matter, not people, and posters from around the globe will be welcome to participate in or initiate discussion of UK-relevant topics. /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/ Specifically, please remember that there is no direct correlation between US climate zones and the climate of the UK. (end quote of urg charter).......................................... ........................ Time and again, urg posters have repeated that all the topics which Gary wishes to discuss in a separate group, are on topic on urg and have long been discussed; including allotment availability, rules, management, prices, open days etc.(Just as we discuss public gardens, botanical gardens, their management, prices, open days, meetings, etc..they are all relevant to UK gardening. (Franz said) Please look at the list of current threads. What? Just started one have you? Not the ones I saw. Allotment posts occur frequently on urg, it's nothing unusual. But I cannot for the life of me understand why you would want to oppose just because the proposer hasn't posted enough to urg in the past, or has chosen to remain on the sidelines. Look up the requirements for the formation of a new group within the Big 8 hierarchy on usenet. A new-group proposal is supposed to fill an empty niche, to provide a discussion opportunity that isn't available elsewhere. Urg is an active rec.group where discussion of allotments is on topic, frequent,welcomed, and has covered all the issues Gary claims to need a new group for.So the fact that what Gary proposes has been long-established within the same usenet hierarchy, and he doesn't make use of it, is a relevant issue to informed voters. I suspect that his earlier claim to be an urg lurker was as inaccurate as his "summary of the RFD discussion" in the CFV, his claim that the new group will benefit urg, and your claim about this group's charter. If Gary's proposal doesn't meet the required standard to form a group within the Big 8 hierarchies, he could always go downmarket and start an alt.group about allotments. Oops, I'm forgetting..he already thought of that, and got blown out of the water then too, for equally good reasons. Google/groups search facility is such a mixed blessing, isn't it? :-) Janet |
1st CFV : Create unmoderated newsgroup uk.rec.gardening.allotments
The message
from "Anthony" contains these words: "Franz Heymann" wrote in message ... So he did in fact say that QUOTE "Most" believe that "Allotments" are a total different issue to "Gardening" UNQUOTE. Yes but it WASN'T the FULL QUOTE, which affected its meaning. It's my post which you accuse of misquoting, Anthony. If you read it again, you'll see that I quoted Gary's point in full in my previous paragraph. So it's clear there was no intention to conceal its context or alter intended meaning. Again, Quote to me where in the charter of urg. it specifies the discussion of allotments. If it not specified it is strictly speaking OFF topic. ** **That is untrue, the urg charter says the opposite. Here it is; charter of uk.rec.gardening. To discuss gardening issues relevant to the UK. //\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ These will include flowers, shrubs, trees, fruit & vegetables, lawns,houseplants, beneficial insects & animals, soils, composting, design, location, situation, seasons/times, hard structures (paths,greenhouses, cloches, rockeries), ponds, tools & materials, weeds and pests & diseases. ** This is not meant to be an exhaustive list. \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ In the absence of more appropriate, geographically specific newsgroups, discussion of gardening in Eire, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man will also be welcome. Because there are climatic, legal, cultural and other differences, discussion of gardening in other parts of the world is OFF TOPIC (there are other regional gardening newsgroups, and the global rec.gardens, one of which may be more appropriate). Please note that this exclusion relates to subject matter, not people, and posters from around the globe will be welcome to participate in or initiate discussion of UK-relevant topics. /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/ Specifically, please remember that there is no direct correlation between US climate zones and the climate of the UK. (end quote of urg charter).......................................... ........................ Time and again, urg posters have repeated that all the topics which Gary wishes to discuss in a separate group, are on topic on urg and have long been discussed; including allotment availability, rules, management, prices, open days etc.(Just as we discuss public gardens, botanical gardens, their management, prices, open days, meetings, etc..they are all relevant to UK gardening. (Franz said) Please look at the list of current threads. What? Just started one have you? Not the ones I saw. Allotment posts occur frequently on urg, it's nothing unusual. But I cannot for the life of me understand why you would want to oppose just because the proposer hasn't posted enough to urg in the past, or has chosen to remain on the sidelines. Look up the requirements for the formation of a new group within the Big 8 hierarchy on usenet. A new-group proposal is supposed to fill an empty niche, to provide a discussion opportunity that isn't available elsewhere. Urg is an active rec.group where discussion of allotments is on topic, frequent,welcomed, and has covered all the issues Gary claims to need a new group for.So the fact that what Gary proposes has been long-established within the same usenet hierarchy, and he doesn't make use of it, is a relevant issue to informed voters. I suspect that his earlier claim to be an urg lurker was as inaccurate as his "summary of the RFD discussion" in the CFV, his claim that the new group will benefit urg, and your claim about this group's charter. If Gary's proposal doesn't meet the required standard to form a group within the Big 8 hierarchies, he could always go downmarket and start an alt.group about allotments. Oops, I'm forgetting..he already thought of that, and got blown out of the water then too, for equally good reasons. Google/groups search facility is such a mixed blessing, isn't it? :-) Janet |
1st CFV : Create unmoderated newsgroup uk.rec.gardening.allotments
It must be me, I read that as "Create unmolested newsgroup"
John -- John Rouse |
1st CFV : Create unmoderated newsgroup uk.rec.gardening.allotments
The message
from "Anthony" contains these words: "Franz Heymann" wrote in message ... So he did in fact say that QUOTE "Most" believe that "Allotments" are a total different issue to "Gardening" UNQUOTE. Yes but it WASN'T the FULL QUOTE, which affected its meaning. It's my post which you accuse of misquoting, Anthony. If you read it again, you'll see that I quoted Gary's point in full in my previous paragraph. So it's clear there was no intention to conceal its context or alter intended meaning. Again, Quote to me where in the charter of urg. it specifies the discussion of allotments. If it not specified it is strictly speaking OFF topic. ** **That is untrue, the urg charter says the opposite. Here it is; charter of uk.rec.gardening. To discuss gardening issues relevant to the UK. //\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ These will include flowers, shrubs, trees, fruit & vegetables, lawns,houseplants, beneficial insects & animals, soils, composting, design, location, situation, seasons/times, hard structures (paths,greenhouses, cloches, rockeries), ponds, tools & materials, weeds and pests & diseases. ** This is not meant to be an exhaustive list. \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ In the absence of more appropriate, geographically specific newsgroups, discussion of gardening in Eire, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man will also be welcome. Because there are climatic, legal, cultural and other differences, discussion of gardening in other parts of the world is OFF TOPIC (there are other regional gardening newsgroups, and the global rec.gardens, one of which may be more appropriate). Please note that this exclusion relates to subject matter, not people, and posters from around the globe will be welcome to participate in or initiate discussion of UK-relevant topics. /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/ Specifically, please remember that there is no direct correlation between US climate zones and the climate of the UK. (end quote of urg charter).......................................... ........................ Time and again, urg posters have repeated that all the topics which Gary wishes to discuss in a separate group, are on topic on urg and have long been discussed; including allotment availability, rules, management, prices, open days etc.(Just as we discuss public gardens, botanical gardens, their management, prices, open days, meetings, etc..they are all relevant to UK gardening. (Franz said) Please look at the list of current threads. What? Just started one have you? Not the ones I saw. Allotment posts occur frequently on urg, it's nothing unusual. But I cannot for the life of me understand why you would want to oppose just because the proposer hasn't posted enough to urg in the past, or has chosen to remain on the sidelines. Look up the requirements for the formation of a new group within the Big 8 hierarchy on usenet. A new-group proposal is supposed to fill an empty niche, to provide a discussion opportunity that isn't available elsewhere. Urg is an active rec.group where discussion of allotments is on topic, frequent,welcomed, and has covered all the issues Gary claims to need a new group for.So the fact that what Gary proposes has been long-established within the same usenet hierarchy, and he doesn't make use of it, is a relevant issue to informed voters. I suspect that his earlier claim to be an urg lurker was as inaccurate as his "summary of the RFD discussion" in the CFV, his claim that the new group will benefit urg, and your claim about this group's charter. If Gary's proposal doesn't meet the required standard to form a group within the Big 8 hierarchies, he could always go downmarket and start an alt.group about allotments. Oops, I'm forgetting..he already thought of that, and got blown out of the water then too, for equally good reasons. Google/groups search facility is such a mixed blessing, isn't it? :-) Janet |
1st CFV : Create unmoderated newsgroup uk.rec.gardening.allotments
"Franz Heymann" wrote in message ... "Anthony" wrote in message ... "Franz Heymann" wrote in message ... So he did in fact say that QUOTE "Most" believe that "Allotments" are a total different issue to "Gardening" UNQUOTE. Yes but it WASN'T the FULL QUOTE, which affected its meaning. Who do you think you are bluffing? I have just looked again at the original and it is clear that my quotation conveys the sense of the original. Ah, so is his intent just to split urg, thereby being the opposite of "good for URG" Where does he say he wants to split urg? The actual quote please. What realistically do you think the harm would be? Where did I say that he *said* he wants to split urg? I *deduced* that he wants to split urg. Why else would he be proposing a new group when in fact there are allotmenteers happily contributing to urg? The proposer has not once tried to raise matters of interest to allotmenteers in urg. Indeed, it seems that he has never even lurked in urg, otherwise he would have been aware that allotment issues *are* in fact discussed there. That is total rubbish. Please familiarise yourself with urg's charter and understand it before talking such nonsense. Again, Quote to me where in the charter of urg. it specifies the discussion of allotments. Are you really as silly as you come across? The charter does not say anywhere that growing lavender bushes or raising half hardy seedlings are suitable topics for discussion in urg either. So, are we supposed to avert our eyes when those topics crop up? If it not specified it is strictly speaking OFF topic. I have read the charter, have you? Can you find it? on another group, where people can talk vegetables, sheds and planning to their hearts content. Urglers are in fact this very minute discussing "sheds and planning to their hearts content." Please look at the list of current threads. What? Just started one have you? You are obviously quite unfamiliar with the contents of urg in the past and now. That does not put you in a good position for defending the setting up of a breakaway group. I leave it for others to decide for themselves whether that last paragraph spells out a case for splitting a very active group just to satisfy the whim of a person, or small coterie of folk who have never tried to participate in the existing group. Its not for me to spell out the case for the formation for the new group. Why have you then written this particular note? But I cannot for the life of me understand why you would want to oppose just because the proposer hasn't posted enough to urg in the past, or has chosen to remain on the sidelines. Far be it from me to specify where the bounds of your understanding should lie. The bandwidth issue has been spouted but no evidence has been given to prove that more space would be taken up by the new group. Time and again, you Franz, have stated that all posts to the proposed group would be crossposted, again without a shread of evidence being cited. You are being even more silly than you are. How on earth can evidence have accrued for an event in the future? But for a somewhat analogous case, look at what happened in uk.rec.audio when uk.rec.audio.vinyl and uk.rec.audio.car were spawned. Many reasons therefore against the motion with a distinct lack of evidence. You are being needlessly repetitive. The proposer has been accused of 'Empire Building', I personally think that some people are frightened that their own 'little empire' may be under threat in some way. Still we can agree to differ can't we Franz. You vote your way, I'll vote mine. Of course. Why did you bother to post? Franz Talking of trolls .... what are you doing in this newsgroup? You never seem to have anything to say about gardening and your comments are usually distasteful and inappropriate. Anne |
1st CFV : Create unmoderated newsgroup uk.rec.gardening.allotments
"Franz Heymann" wrote in message ... "Anthony" wrote in message ... "Franz Heymann" wrote in message ... So he did in fact say that QUOTE "Most" believe that "Allotments" are a total different issue to "Gardening" UNQUOTE. Yes but it WASN'T the FULL QUOTE, which affected its meaning. Who do you think you are bluffing? I have just looked again at the original and it is clear that my quotation conveys the sense of the original. Ah, so is his intent just to split urg, thereby being the opposite of "good for URG" Where does he say he wants to split urg? The actual quote please. What realistically do you think the harm would be? Where did I say that he *said* he wants to split urg? I *deduced* that he wants to split urg. Why else would he be proposing a new group when in fact there are allotmenteers happily contributing to urg? The proposer has not once tried to raise matters of interest to allotmenteers in urg. Indeed, it seems that he has never even lurked in urg, otherwise he would have been aware that allotment issues *are* in fact discussed there. That is total rubbish. Please familiarise yourself with urg's charter and understand it before talking such nonsense. Again, Quote to me where in the charter of urg. it specifies the discussion of allotments. Are you really as silly as you come across? The charter does not say anywhere that growing lavender bushes or raising half hardy seedlings are suitable topics for discussion in urg either. So, are we supposed to avert our eyes when those topics crop up? If it not specified it is strictly speaking OFF topic. I have read the charter, have you? Can you find it? on another group, where people can talk vegetables, sheds and planning to their hearts content. Urglers are in fact this very minute discussing "sheds and planning to their hearts content." Please look at the list of current threads. What? Just started one have you? You are obviously quite unfamiliar with the contents of urg in the past and now. That does not put you in a good position for defending the setting up of a breakaway group. I leave it for others to decide for themselves whether that last paragraph spells out a case for splitting a very active group just to satisfy the whim of a person, or small coterie of folk who have never tried to participate in the existing group. Its not for me to spell out the case for the formation for the new group. Why have you then written this particular note? But I cannot for the life of me understand why you would want to oppose just because the proposer hasn't posted enough to urg in the past, or has chosen to remain on the sidelines. Far be it from me to specify where the bounds of your understanding should lie. The bandwidth issue has been spouted but no evidence has been given to prove that more space would be taken up by the new group. Time and again, you Franz, have stated that all posts to the proposed group would be crossposted, again without a shread of evidence being cited. You are being even more silly than you are. How on earth can evidence have accrued for an event in the future? But for a somewhat analogous case, look at what happened in uk.rec.audio when uk.rec.audio.vinyl and uk.rec.audio.car were spawned. Many reasons therefore against the motion with a distinct lack of evidence. You are being needlessly repetitive. The proposer has been accused of 'Empire Building', I personally think that some people are frightened that their own 'little empire' may be under threat in some way. Still we can agree to differ can't we Franz. You vote your way, I'll vote mine. Of course. Why did you bother to post? Franz Talking of trolls .... what are you doing in this newsgroup? You never seem to have anything to say about gardening and your comments are usually distasteful and inappropriate. Anne |
1st CFV : Create unmoderated newsgroup uk.rec.gardening.allotments
In message , Gary Poston
writes Hi urg Hi Gary, glad to see you deigned to join us. What will I gain with reference to a proposed newsgroup urga? My interest is more what would I other posters and urg gain TBH. Well, What I will gain (and others) is bringing people together that rent or even own Allotments This might include, crop rotation, raised bed issues, local meetings, Club AGM's ECT, ECT... Will we discuss Fruit trees? or when to plant tomato plants? Well, Yes, Sometimes, but isn't that what urg newsgroup is for? I don't want to take that away from an excellent gardening newsgroup such as urg, but there are other discussions and issues that can be held in urga. All of the above, plus any other discussions you want are welcome in urg anyway. I remain unconvinced (not that you have done much to try and convince anyone) that there is a real demand for this group. Urg is not swamped by allotment specific questions, most of the discussion would be about the growing of plants etc, or other items of a general 'kitchen garden' nature anyway - which are not really in anyway specific to allotments - effectively splitting the place to discuss veg questions over two groups. While lack of contribution in the past to urg should not in itself be a reason to object necessarily, this along with the failure to raise the issue first in urg for 'informal' discussion probably does not dispose some people towards you and your proposition If it encourages new Allotment holders, SO BE IT!. I doubt it would make any difference. Who gives someone the right to object to such a group when it can benefit all of us? We all have the right to vote as we see fit, for whatever reasons we wish. however, I would dispute the claim that it would benefit all of us anyway. I've yet to vote (I've just picked up on the CFV) but I'm minded to vote no. -- Chris French and Helen Johnson, Leeds urg Suppliers and References FAQ: http://www.familyfrench.co.uk/garden/urgfaq/index.html |
1st CFV : Create unmoderated newsgroup uk.rec.gardening.allotments
In message , Gary Poston
writes Hi urg Hi Gary, glad to see you deigned to join us. What will I gain with reference to a proposed newsgroup urga? My interest is more what would I other posters and urg gain TBH. Well, What I will gain (and others) is bringing people together that rent or even own Allotments This might include, crop rotation, raised bed issues, local meetings, Club AGM's ECT, ECT... Will we discuss Fruit trees? or when to plant tomato plants? Well, Yes, Sometimes, but isn't that what urg newsgroup is for? I don't want to take that away from an excellent gardening newsgroup such as urg, but there are other discussions and issues that can be held in urga. All of the above, plus any other discussions you want are welcome in urg anyway. I remain unconvinced (not that you have done much to try and convince anyone) that there is a real demand for this group. Urg is not swamped by allotment specific questions, most of the discussion would be about the growing of plants etc, or other items of a general 'kitchen garden' nature anyway - which are not really in anyway specific to allotments - effectively splitting the place to discuss veg questions over two groups. While lack of contribution in the past to urg should not in itself be a reason to object necessarily, this along with the failure to raise the issue first in urg for 'informal' discussion probably does not dispose some people towards you and your proposition If it encourages new Allotment holders, SO BE IT!. I doubt it would make any difference. Who gives someone the right to object to such a group when it can benefit all of us? We all have the right to vote as we see fit, for whatever reasons we wish. however, I would dispute the claim that it would benefit all of us anyway. I've yet to vote (I've just picked up on the CFV) but I'm minded to vote no. -- Chris French and Helen Johnson, Leeds urg Suppliers and References FAQ: http://www.familyfrench.co.uk/garden/urgfaq/index.html |
1st CFV : Create unmoderated newsgroup uk.rec.gardening.allotments
"Jaques d'Alltrades" wrote in message ... The message from "Franz Heymann" contains these words: I see nothing relating to the allotments issue in uk.net.news.config. What date and what title should I see? 1st CFV : Create unmoderated newsgroup uk.rec.gardening.allotments Ah. Too late, I see. What does this last sentence mean? Who is too late for what? Franz |
1st CFV : Create unmoderated newsgroup uk.rec.gardening.allotments
"Franz Heymann" wrote in message ... "Neil Jones" wrote in message ... "Jaques d'Alltrades" wrote in message ... The message from "Franz Heymann" contains these words: I see nothing relating to the allotments issue in uk.net.news.config. What date and what title should I see? 1st CFV : Create unmoderated newsgroup uk.rec.gardening.allotments Ah. Too late, I see. Too late? The voting has only just started... How can it have started if I have not yet seen any reference whatsoever to this in ok.net.news.config? Franz I don't know precisely why you haven't seen it but the call for votes was cross posted to the various groups rather than (as is implied in the message) being posted to each group individually. Maybe you filter crossposts? Neil |
1st CFV : Create unmoderated newsgroup uk.rec.gardening.allotments
On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 15:12:13 +0000 (UTC), "Franz Heymann"
wrote: "martin" wrote in message .. . On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 09:00:27 +0000 (UTC), "Franz Heymann" It is in uk.net.news.announce and it should have been posted here too I don't see it in uk.net.news.announce and I don't see it in urg either. What is going on? I saw it. Switch to Berlin for your news it's much faster and more reliable. News.Individual.NET you have to e-mail them for a password. -- Knowledge is knowing a tomato is a fruit; Wisdom is not putting it in a fruit salad |
1st CFV : Create unmoderated newsgroup uk.rec.gardening.allotments
On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 22:58:11 -0000, "Anthony"
wrote: "martin" wrote in message .. . On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 00:10:24 -0000, "Anthony" wrote: To discuss gardening issues relevant to the UK. These will include flowers, shrubs, trees, fruit & vegetables, lawns, houseplants, beneficial insects & animals, soils, composting, design, location, situation, seasons/times, hard structures (paths, greenhouses, cloches, rockeries), ponds, tools & materials, weeds and pests & diseases. This is not meant to be an exhaustive list." Which part of "This is not meant to be an exhaustive list." do you find difficult to understand? Are you sure your read the charter? So the word allotment is NOT specified! Have you read what you cut and pasted? It seems to be hiden in a secret paragraph. What seems to be hidden in a secret paragraph? You see I could talk about telegraph poles, cars and cess pits, because each of my neighbours has one or more in their garden, and still be on topic by your argument. It's not an argument, it's the urg charter. It will always be OK because somebody says it is 'not an exhaustive list'. It's not someone. It's the charter, that you claimed to have read. -- Knowledge is knowing a tomato is a fruit; Wisdom is not putting it in a fruit salad |
1st CFV : Create unmoderated newsgroup uk.rec.gardening.allotments
On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 23:21:42 -0000, "Anthony"
wrote: You are making it up as you go along! How on earth can you know that someone has not 'lurked' in a group? Because the person said so. Subtle eh? -- Knowledge is knowing a tomato is a fruit; Wisdom is not putting it in a fruit salad |
1st CFV : Create unmoderated newsgroup uk.rec.gardening.allotments
On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 00:36:15 -0000, "Anne Wheeldon"
wrote: "Franz Heymann" wrote in message ... "Anthony" wrote in message ... "Franz Heymann" wrote in message ... So he did in fact say that QUOTE "Most" believe that "Allotments" are a total different issue to "Gardening" UNQUOTE. Yes but it WASN'T the FULL QUOTE, which affected its meaning. Who do you think you are bluffing? I have just looked again at the original and it is clear that my quotation conveys the sense of the original. Ah, so is his intent just to split urg, thereby being the opposite of "good for URG" Where does he say he wants to split urg? The actual quote please. What realistically do you think the harm would be? Where did I say that he *said* he wants to split urg? I *deduced* that he wants to split urg. Why else would he be proposing a new group when in fact there are allotmenteers happily contributing to urg? The proposer has not once tried to raise matters of interest to allotmenteers in urg. Indeed, it seems that he has never even lurked in urg, otherwise he would have been aware that allotment issues *are* in fact discussed there. That is total rubbish. Please familiarise yourself with urg's charter and understand it before talking such nonsense. Again, Quote to me where in the charter of urg. it specifies the discussion of allotments. Are you really as silly as you come across? The charter does not say anywhere that growing lavender bushes or raising half hardy seedlings are suitable topics for discussion in urg either. So, are we supposed to avert our eyes when those topics crop up? If it not specified it is strictly speaking OFF topic. I have read the charter, have you? Can you find it? on another group, where people can talk vegetables, sheds and planning to their hearts content. Urglers are in fact this very minute discussing "sheds and planning to their hearts content." Please look at the list of current threads. What? Just started one have you? You are obviously quite unfamiliar with the contents of urg in the past and now. That does not put you in a good position for defending the setting up of a breakaway group. I leave it for others to decide for themselves whether that last paragraph spells out a case for splitting a very active group just to satisfy the whim of a person, or small coterie of folk who have never tried to participate in the existing group. Its not for me to spell out the case for the formation for the new group. Why have you then written this particular note? But I cannot for the life of me understand why you would want to oppose just because the proposer hasn't posted enough to urg in the past, or has chosen to remain on the sidelines. Far be it from me to specify where the bounds of your understanding should lie. The bandwidth issue has been spouted but no evidence has been given to prove that more space would be taken up by the new group. Time and again, you Franz, have stated that all posts to the proposed group would be crossposted, again without a shread of evidence being cited. You are being even more silly than you are. How on earth can evidence have accrued for an event in the future? But for a somewhat analogous case, look at what happened in uk.rec.audio when uk.rec.audio.vinyl and uk.rec.audio.car were spawned. Many reasons therefore against the motion with a distinct lack of evidence. You are being needlessly repetitive. The proposer has been accused of 'Empire Building', I personally think that some people are frightened that their own 'little empire' may be under threat in some way. Still we can agree to differ can't we Franz. You vote your way, I'll vote mine. Of course. Why did you bother to post? Franz Talking of trolls .... what are you doing in this newsgroup? You never seem to have anything to say about gardening and your comments are usually distasteful and inappropriate. I totally disagree. Franz has had lots to say about gardening. It's also clear you don't understand the meaning of troll. A troll is not somebody, who doesn't agree with the clique all the time. -- Knowledge is knowing a tomato is a fruit; Wisdom is not putting it in a fruit salad |
1st CFV : Create unmoderated newsgroup uk.rec.gardening.allotments
The message
from "Anthony" contains these words: Time and again, urg posters have repeated that all the topics which Gary wishes to discuss in a separate group, are on topic on urg and have long been discussed; including allotment availability, rules, management, prices, open days etc.(Just as we discuss public gardens, botanical gardens, their management, prices, open days, meetings, etc..they are all relevant to UK gardening. It is on topic due to historical reasons, but I was under the impression that if a subject was not included it was off topic. How? Have you been on Usenet long? -- Rusty Open the creaking gate to make a horrid.squeak, then lower the foobar. http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/hi-fi/ |
1st CFV : Create unmoderated newsgroup uk.rec.gardening.allotments
The message
from "Anthony" contains these words: Thank you Janet for your post, I now have a better grasp of your argument against the proposal. I don't agree with it however :) I don't claim to have time to have read every post on this subject, but some people seem to be making up non existant problems with which to try and put people off the proposal for no other reason than their own selfish goals. Selfish? How? -- Rusty Open the creaking gate to make a horrid.squeak, then lower the foobar. http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/hi-fi/ |
1st CFV : Create unmoderated newsgroup uk.rec.gardening.allotments
The message
from "Anthony" contains these words: So the word allotment is NOT specified! Have you read what you cut and pasted? It seems to be hiden in a secret paragraph. You see I could talk about telegraph poles, cars and cess pits, because each of my neighbours has one or more in their garden, and still be on topic by your argument. Most, or all of which have been discussed in urg in the past. We also talk about ponds, woodland, bog-gardens, and a host of other subjects which are not specified. Unlike you, I have collected urg on and off for about seven years, and you'd be surprised at some of the subjects discussed. This is what 'this is not intended to be an ehaustive list' means. It will always be OK because somebody says it is 'not an exhaustive list'. It rather depends on the angle of aproach. -- Rusty Open the creaking gate to make a horrid.squeak, then lower the foobar. http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/hi-fi/ |
1st CFV : Create unmoderated newsgroup uk.rec.gardening.allotments
The message
from "Anthony" contains these words: Of course. Why did you bother to post? Why did you waste bandwidth replying? Why can't you both trim your posts? -- Rusty Open the creaking gate to make a horrid.squeak, then lower the foobar. http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/hi-fi/ |
1st CFV : Create unmoderated newsgroup uk.rec.gardening.allotments
On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 00:36:15 -0000, "Anne Wheeldon"
wrote: "Franz Heymann" wrote in message ... "Anthony" wrote in message ... "Franz Heymann" wrote in message ... So he did in fact say that QUOTE "Most" believe that "Allotments" are a total different issue to "Gardening" UNQUOTE. Yes but it WASN'T the FULL QUOTE, which affected its meaning. Who do you think you are bluffing? I have just looked again at the original and it is clear that my quotation conveys the sense of the original. Ah, so is his intent just to split urg, thereby being the opposite of "good for URG" Where does he say he wants to split urg? The actual quote please. What realistically do you think the harm would be? Where did I say that he *said* he wants to split urg? I *deduced* that he wants to split urg. Why else would he be proposing a new group when in fact there are allotmenteers happily contributing to urg? The proposer has not once tried to raise matters of interest to allotmenteers in urg. Indeed, it seems that he has never even lurked in urg, otherwise he would have been aware that allotment issues *are* in fact discussed there. That is total rubbish. Please familiarise yourself with urg's charter and understand it before talking such nonsense. Again, Quote to me where in the charter of urg. it specifies the discussion of allotments. Are you really as silly as you come across? The charter does not say anywhere that growing lavender bushes or raising half hardy seedlings are suitable topics for discussion in urg either. So, are we supposed to avert our eyes when those topics crop up? If it not specified it is strictly speaking OFF topic. I have read the charter, have you? Can you find it? on another group, where people can talk vegetables, sheds and planning to their hearts content. Urglers are in fact this very minute discussing "sheds and planning to their hearts content." Please look at the list of current threads. What? Just started one have you? You are obviously quite unfamiliar with the contents of urg in the past and now. That does not put you in a good position for defending the setting up of a breakaway group. I leave it for others to decide for themselves whether that last paragraph spells out a case for splitting a very active group just to satisfy the whim of a person, or small coterie of folk who have never tried to participate in the existing group. Its not for me to spell out the case for the formation for the new group. Why have you then written this particular note? But I cannot for the life of me understand why you would want to oppose just because the proposer hasn't posted enough to urg in the past, or has chosen to remain on the sidelines. Far be it from me to specify where the bounds of your understanding should lie. The bandwidth issue has been spouted but no evidence has been given to prove that more space would be taken up by the new group. Time and again, you Franz, have stated that all posts to the proposed group would be crossposted, again without a shread of evidence being cited. You are being even more silly than you are. How on earth can evidence have accrued for an event in the future? But for a somewhat analogous case, look at what happened in uk.rec.audio when uk.rec.audio.vinyl and uk.rec.audio.car were spawned. Many reasons therefore against the motion with a distinct lack of evidence. You are being needlessly repetitive. The proposer has been accused of 'Empire Building', I personally think that some people are frightened that their own 'little empire' may be under threat in some way. Still we can agree to differ can't we Franz. You vote your way, I'll vote mine. Of course. Why did you bother to post? Franz Talking of trolls .... what are you doing in this newsgroup? You never seem to have anything to say about gardening and your comments are usually distasteful and inappropriate. I totally disagree. Franz has had lots to say about gardening. It's also clear you don't understand the meaning of troll. A troll is not somebody, who doesn't agree with the clique all the time. -- Knowledge is knowing a tomato is a fruit; Wisdom is not putting it in a fruit salad |
1st CFV : Create unmoderated newsgroup uk.rec.gardening.allotments
The message
from "Anthony" contains these words: Time and again, urg posters have repeated that all the topics which Gary wishes to discuss in a separate group, are on topic on urg and have long been discussed; including allotment availability, rules, management, prices, open days etc.(Just as we discuss public gardens, botanical gardens, their management, prices, open days, meetings, etc..they are all relevant to UK gardening. It is on topic due to historical reasons, but I was under the impression that if a subject was not included it was off topic. How? Have you been on Usenet long? -- Rusty Open the creaking gate to make a horrid.squeak, then lower the foobar. http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/hi-fi/ |
1st CFV : Create unmoderated newsgroup uk.rec.gardening.allotments
The message
from "Anthony" contains these words: Thank you Janet for your post, I now have a better grasp of your argument against the proposal. I don't agree with it however :) I don't claim to have time to have read every post on this subject, but some people seem to be making up non existant problems with which to try and put people off the proposal for no other reason than their own selfish goals. Selfish? How? -- Rusty Open the creaking gate to make a horrid.squeak, then lower the foobar. http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/hi-fi/ |
1st CFV : Create unmoderated newsgroup uk.rec.gardening.allotments
The message
from "Anthony" contains these words: So the word allotment is NOT specified! Have you read what you cut and pasted? It seems to be hiden in a secret paragraph. You see I could talk about telegraph poles, cars and cess pits, because each of my neighbours has one or more in their garden, and still be on topic by your argument. Most, or all of which have been discussed in urg in the past. We also talk about ponds, woodland, bog-gardens, and a host of other subjects which are not specified. Unlike you, I have collected urg on and off for about seven years, and you'd be surprised at some of the subjects discussed. This is what 'this is not intended to be an ehaustive list' means. It will always be OK because somebody says it is 'not an exhaustive list'. It rather depends on the angle of aproach. -- Rusty Open the creaking gate to make a horrid.squeak, then lower the foobar. http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/hi-fi/ |
1st CFV : Create unmoderated newsgroup uk.rec.gardening.allotments
The message
from "Anne Wheeldon" contains these words: Talking of trolls .... what are you doing in this newsgroup? You never seem to have anything to say about gardening and your comments are usually distasteful and inappropriate. You have quoted 126 lines to post three. Please trim. And you obviously don't spend much time in here these days or you would have a more constructive view on Franz's posts. He does have the unfortunate habit of rising to trolls though - and not snipping. -- Rusty Open the creaking gate to make a horrid.squeak, then lower the foobar. http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/hi-fi/ |
1st CFV : Create unmoderated newsgroup uk.rec.gardening.allotments
The message
from "Anthony" contains these words: Of course. Why did you bother to post? Why did you waste bandwidth replying? Why can't you both trim your posts? -- Rusty Open the creaking gate to make a horrid.squeak, then lower the foobar. http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/hi-fi/ |
1st CFV : Create unmoderated newsgroup uk.rec.gardening.allotments
The message
from "Anne Wheeldon" contains these words: Talking of trolls .... what are you doing in this newsgroup? You never seem to have anything to say about gardening and your comments are usually distasteful and inappropriate. You have quoted 126 lines to post three. Please trim. And you obviously don't spend much time in here these days or you would have a more constructive view on Franz's posts. He does have the unfortunate habit of rising to trolls though - and not snipping. -- Rusty Open the creaking gate to make a horrid.squeak, then lower the foobar. http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/hi-fi/ |
1st CFV : Create unmoderated newsgroup uk.rec.gardening.allotments
On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 00:36:15 -0000, "Anne Wheeldon"
wrote: "Franz Heymann" wrote in message ... "Anthony" wrote in message ... "Franz Heymann" wrote in message ... So he did in fact say that QUOTE "Most" believe that "Allotments" are a total different issue to "Gardening" UNQUOTE. Yes but it WASN'T the FULL QUOTE, which affected its meaning. Who do you think you are bluffing? I have just looked again at the original and it is clear that my quotation conveys the sense of the original. Ah, so is his intent just to split urg, thereby being the opposite of "good for URG" Where does he say he wants to split urg? The actual quote please. What realistically do you think the harm would be? Where did I say that he *said* he wants to split urg? I *deduced* that he wants to split urg. Why else would he be proposing a new group when in fact there are allotmenteers happily contributing to urg? The proposer has not once tried to raise matters of interest to allotmenteers in urg. Indeed, it seems that he has never even lurked in urg, otherwise he would have been aware that allotment issues *are* in fact discussed there. That is total rubbish. Please familiarise yourself with urg's charter and understand it before talking such nonsense. Again, Quote to me where in the charter of urg. it specifies the discussion of allotments. Are you really as silly as you come across? The charter does not say anywhere that growing lavender bushes or raising half hardy seedlings are suitable topics for discussion in urg either. So, are we supposed to avert our eyes when those topics crop up? If it not specified it is strictly speaking OFF topic. I have read the charter, have you? Can you find it? on another group, where people can talk vegetables, sheds and planning to their hearts content. Urglers are in fact this very minute discussing "sheds and planning to their hearts content." Please look at the list of current threads. What? Just started one have you? You are obviously quite unfamiliar with the contents of urg in the past and now. That does not put you in a good position for defending the setting up of a breakaway group. I leave it for others to decide for themselves whether that last paragraph spells out a case for splitting a very active group just to satisfy the whim of a person, or small coterie of folk who have never tried to participate in the existing group. Its not for me to spell out the case for the formation for the new group. Why have you then written this particular note? But I cannot for the life of me understand why you would want to oppose just because the proposer hasn't posted enough to urg in the past, or has chosen to remain on the sidelines. Far be it from me to specify where the bounds of your understanding should lie. The bandwidth issue has been spouted but no evidence has been given to prove that more space would be taken up by the new group. Time and again, you Franz, have stated that all posts to the proposed group would be crossposted, again without a shread of evidence being cited. You are being even more silly than you are. How on earth can evidence have accrued for an event in the future? But for a somewhat analogous case, look at what happened in uk.rec.audio when uk.rec.audio.vinyl and uk.rec.audio.car were spawned. Many reasons therefore against the motion with a distinct lack of evidence. You are being needlessly repetitive. The proposer has been accused of 'Empire Building', I personally think that some people are frightened that their own 'little empire' may be under threat in some way. Still we can agree to differ can't we Franz. You vote your way, I'll vote mine. Of course. Why did you bother to post? Franz Talking of trolls .... what are you doing in this newsgroup? You never seem to have anything to say about gardening and your comments are usually distasteful and inappropriate. I totally disagree. Franz has had lots to say about gardening. It's also clear you don't understand the meaning of troll. A troll is not somebody, who doesn't agree with the clique all the time. -- Knowledge is knowing a tomato is a fruit; Wisdom is not putting it in a fruit salad |
1st CFV : Create unmoderated newsgroup uk.rec.gardening.allotments
In article , Anthony anthonyhughes@61
4kingsway.freeserve.co.uk writes "So the word allotment is NOT specified! Have you read what you cut and pasted? It seems to be hiden in a secret paragraph. You see I could talk about telegraph poles, cars and cess pits, because each of my neighbours has one or more in their garden, and still be on topic by your argument. It will always be OK because somebody says it is 'not an exhaustive list'. We've certainly talked about cess pits. And buried cars. What to grow up a telegraph pole would also be on topic. -- Kay Easton Edward's earthworm page: http://www.scarboro.demon.co.uk/edward/index.htm |
1st CFV : Create unmoderated newsgroup uk.rec.gardening.allotments
In article , Chris French
writes in reply to someone else If it encourages new Allotment holders, SO BE IT!. I doubt it would make any difference. I imagine urga would be subscribed to only by existing allotmenteers, and new allotment holders would be more likely to be converted from existing gardeners seeing allotment posts in urg -- Kay Easton Edward's earthworm page: http://www.scarboro.demon.co.uk/edward/index.htm |
1st CFV : Create unmoderated newsgroup uk.rec.gardening.allotments
The message
from "Anthony" contains these words: Time and again, urg posters have repeated that all the topics which Gary wishes to discuss in a separate group, are on topic on urg and have long been discussed; including allotment availability, rules, management, prices, open days etc.(Just as we discuss public gardens, botanical gardens, their management, prices, open days, meetings, etc..they are all relevant to UK gardening. It is on topic due to historical reasons, but I was under the impression that if a subject was not included it was off topic. How? Have you been on Usenet long? -- Rusty Open the creaking gate to make a horrid.squeak, then lower the foobar. http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/hi-fi/ |
1st CFV : Create unmoderated newsgroup uk.rec.gardening.allotments
The message
from "Anthony" contains these words: Thank you Janet for your post, I now have a better grasp of your argument against the proposal. I don't agree with it however :) I don't claim to have time to have read every post on this subject, but some people seem to be making up non existant problems with which to try and put people off the proposal for no other reason than their own selfish goals. Selfish? How? -- Rusty Open the creaking gate to make a horrid.squeak, then lower the foobar. http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/hi-fi/ |
1st CFV : Create unmoderated newsgroup uk.rec.gardening.allotments
The message
from "Anthony" contains these words: So the word allotment is NOT specified! Have you read what you cut and pasted? It seems to be hiden in a secret paragraph. You see I could talk about telegraph poles, cars and cess pits, because each of my neighbours has one or more in their garden, and still be on topic by your argument. Most, or all of which have been discussed in urg in the past. We also talk about ponds, woodland, bog-gardens, and a host of other subjects which are not specified. Unlike you, I have collected urg on and off for about seven years, and you'd be surprised at some of the subjects discussed. This is what 'this is not intended to be an ehaustive list' means. It will always be OK because somebody says it is 'not an exhaustive list'. It rather depends on the angle of aproach. -- Rusty Open the creaking gate to make a horrid.squeak, then lower the foobar. http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/hi-fi/ |
1st CFV : Create unmoderated newsgroup uk.rec.gardening.allotments
The message
from "Anthony" contains these words: Of course. Why did you bother to post? Why did you waste bandwidth replying? Why can't you both trim your posts? -- Rusty Open the creaking gate to make a horrid.squeak, then lower the foobar. http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/hi-fi/ |
1st CFV : Create unmoderated newsgroup uk.rec.gardening.allotments
On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 12:49:23 GMT, Janet Baraclough ..
wrote: big snip ~ ~If Gary's proposal doesn't meet the required standard to form a group ~within the Big 8 hierarchies, he could always go downmarket and start an ~alt.group about allotments. Oops, I'm forgetting..he already thought of ~that, and got blown out of the water then too, for equally good reasons. ~ ~Google/groups search facility is such a mixed blessing, isn't it? :-) ~ ~ Janet Well well! Thanks a lot, Janet... I'd never have noticed this otherwise... http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e...3D Google%2BS earch is the whole thread http://tinyurl.com/385oq if the other one doesn't work... :-) This is the first email. The thread is worth reading, for those of you are in two minds... QUOTE................................. From: Gary [Torquay] ) Subject: [Proposal] alt.uk.allotments Newsgroups: alt.config Date: 2004-01-22 16:57:21 PST Here is a proposal for alt.uk.allotments on 23.1.2004 This group is designed to help other allotment holders to stay in touch across the UK for planting times, general planting methods and ideal pest control ect.. Iam a allotment holder for "South Parks" here in Torquay Devon. I have searched for a group of this kind but can not find it available. I feel that "alt.uk.allotments" would be popular group to discuss allotment issues. Many Thanks Gary Poston END QUOTE.............................. specifically *this* reply: QUOTE........................... From: BarB ) Subject: [Proposal] alt.uk.allotments Newsgroups: alt.config Date: 2004-01-23 14:09:18 PST Bring up your idea in uk.rec.gardening. If there's enough interest, you might have the votes to split off a sub group, perhaps name it uk.rec.gardening.allotments. Directions for that hierarchy are found at www.usenet.org.uk The config group is uk.net.news.config. Hierarchy: uk.* Country: United Kingdom Language: English Newsgroup(s): uk.net.news.announce(m), uk.net.news.config Email: URL(s): www.usenet.org.uk BarB END QUOTE........................ Now if he'd actually done what was suggested, ie brought up the idea and discussed it with us he may have had a lot better response... as it was, he just sprang the idea on us with no discussion. -- jane Don't part with your illusions. When they are gone, you may still exist but you have ceased to live. Mark Twain Please remove onmaps from replies, thanks! |
1st CFV : Create unmoderated newsgroup uk.rec.gardening.allotments
On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 12:49:23 GMT, Janet Baraclough ..
wrote: big snip ~ ~If Gary's proposal doesn't meet the required standard to form a group ~within the Big 8 hierarchies, he could always go downmarket and start an ~alt.group about allotments. Oops, I'm forgetting..he already thought of ~that, and got blown out of the water then too, for equally good reasons. ~ ~Google/groups search facility is such a mixed blessing, isn't it? :-) ~ ~ Janet Well well! Thanks a lot, Janet... I'd never have noticed this otherwise... http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e...3D Google%2BS earch is the whole thread http://tinyurl.com/385oq if the other one doesn't work... :-) This is the first email. The thread is worth reading, for those of you are in two minds... QUOTE................................. From: Gary [Torquay] ) Subject: [Proposal] alt.uk.allotments Newsgroups: alt.config Date: 2004-01-22 16:57:21 PST Here is a proposal for alt.uk.allotments on 23.1.2004 This group is designed to help other allotment holders to stay in touch across the UK for planting times, general planting methods and ideal pest control ect.. Iam a allotment holder for "South Parks" here in Torquay Devon. I have searched for a group of this kind but can not find it available. I feel that "alt.uk.allotments" would be popular group to discuss allotment issues. Many Thanks Gary Poston END QUOTE.............................. specifically *this* reply: QUOTE........................... From: BarB ) Subject: [Proposal] alt.uk.allotments Newsgroups: alt.config Date: 2004-01-23 14:09:18 PST Bring up your idea in uk.rec.gardening. If there's enough interest, you might have the votes to split off a sub group, perhaps name it uk.rec.gardening.allotments. Directions for that hierarchy are found at www.usenet.org.uk The config group is uk.net.news.config. Hierarchy: uk.* Country: United Kingdom Language: English Newsgroup(s): uk.net.news.announce(m), uk.net.news.config Email: URL(s): www.usenet.org.uk BarB END QUOTE........................ Now if he'd actually done what was suggested, ie brought up the idea and discussed it with us he may have had a lot better response... as it was, he just sprang the idea on us with no discussion. -- jane Don't part with your illusions. When they are gone, you may still exist but you have ceased to live. Mark Twain Please remove onmaps from replies, thanks! |
1st CFV : Create unmoderated newsgroup uk.rec.gardening.allotments
On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 09:42:13 +0000 (UTC),
(jane) wrote: On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 12:49:23 GMT, Janet Baraclough .. wrote: big snip ~ ~If Gary's proposal doesn't meet the required standard to form a group ~within the Big 8 hierarchies, he could always go downmarket and start an ~alt.group about allotments. Oops, I'm forgetting..he already thought of ~that, and got blown out of the water then too, for equally good reasons. ~ ~Google/groups search facility is such a mixed blessing, isn't it? :-) ~ ~ Janet Well well! Thanks a lot, Janet... I'd never have noticed this otherwise... http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e...%3D Google%2B Search is the whole thread http://tinyurl.com/385oq if the other one doesn't work... :-) This is the first email. The thread is worth reading, for those of you are in two minds... LOL very good and a feeling of deja vu from ... quote on From: ratzilla ) Subject: [Proposal] alt.uk.allotments View this article only Newsgroups: alt.config Date: 2004-01-22 17:25:20 PST "Gary [Torquay]" wrote in : Here is a proposal for alt.uk.allotments on 23.1.2004 This group is designed to help other allotment holders to stay in touch across the UK for planting times, general planting methods and ideal pest control ect.. Another very specifically british topic (for an international group.) Uk.rec.gardening is crawling with allotment-holders, posting about their allotments - since you don't appear to have posted on the topic, recommend you try it. "To discuss gardening questions and share tips on- Weeds, flowers, shrubs, trees, fruit and veg., lawns, beneficial insects and animals, pests and diseases, soils, composting, design, location, situation, seasons/times, hard structures (paths, greenhouses, cloches, rockeries), tools and materials." end quote -- Knowledge is knowing a tomato is a fruit; Wisdom is not putting it in a fruit salad |
1st CFV : Create unmoderated newsgroup uk.rec.gardening.allotments
On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 23:21:42 -0000, "Anthony"
wrote: "Franz Heymann" wrote in message ... Yes but it WASN'T the FULL QUOTE, which affected its meaning. Who do you think you are bluffing? I have just looked again at the original and it is clear that my quotation conveys the sense of the original. It wasn't YOUR quotation, it belonged to Janet, whom I replied to. Having trouble following the thread Franz? Taking credit for something written by another, theres a name for that! Ah, so is his intent just to split urg, thereby being the opposite of "good for URG" Where does he say he wants to split urg? The actual quote please. What realistically do you think the harm would be? Where did I say that he *said* he wants to split urg? I *deduced* that he wants to split urg. Why else would he be proposing a new group when in fact there are allotmenteers happily contributing to urg? The proposer has not once tried to raise matters of interest to allotmenteers in urg. Indeed, it seems that he has never even lurked in urg, otherwise he would have been aware that allotment issues *are* in fact discussed there. You are making it up as you go along! How on earth can you know that someone has not 'lurked' in a group? That is the most stupid remark you have made so far................... That is total rubbish. Please familiarise yourself with urg's charter and understand it before talking such nonsense. Again, Quote to me where in the charter of urg. it specifies the discussion of allotments. Are you really as silly as you come across? The charter does not say anywhere that growing lavender bushes or raising half hardy seedlings are suitable topics for discussion in urg either. So, are we supposed to avert our eyes when those topics crop up? Not covered under 'flowers or shrubs' then? Wow, no wonder you subscribe to this group, your gardening knowledge is very poor. Now tell me what allotments would come under the heading of? How gripping. If it not specified it is strictly speaking OFF topic. I have read the charter, have you? Can you find it? on another group, where people can talk vegetables, sheds and planning to their hearts content. Urglers are in fact this very minute discussing "sheds and planning to their hearts content." Please look at the list of current threads. What? Just started one have you? You are obviously quite unfamiliar with the contents of urg in the past and now. That does not put you in a good position for defending the setting up of a breakaway group. Use Google, I know how long you have been posting. I bet that scares him. I leave it for others to decide for themselves whether that last paragraph spells out a case for splitting a very active group just to satisfy the whim of a person, or small coterie of folk who have never tried to participate in the existing group. Its not for me to spell out the case for the formation for the new group. Why have you then written this particular note? But I cannot for the life of me understand why you would want to oppose just because the proposer hasn't posted enough to urg in the past, or has chosen to remain on the sidelines. Snip an attempted insult . ******, snip that then! lol The bandwidth issue has been spouted but no evidence has been given to prove that more space would be taken up by the new group. Time and again, you Franz, have stated that all posts to the proposed group would be crossposted, again without a shread of evidence being cited. You are being even more silly than you are. How on earth can evidence have accrued for an event in the future? It was your argument Franz, how soon you forget. Use google to check what you have posted in the past if your memory is failing. All that shows us is you lied about where you live and you are a coward, what have we missed? But for a somewhat analogous case, look at what happened in uk.rec.audio when uk.rec.audio.vinyl and uk.rec.audio.car were spawned. Many reasons therefore against the motion with a distinct lack of evidence. You are being needlessly repetitive. The proposer has been accused of 'Empire Building', I personally think that some people are frightened that their own 'little empire' may be under threat in some way. Still we can agree to differ can't we Franz. You vote your way, I'll vote mine. Of course. Why did you bother to post? Why did you waste bandwidth replying? Shut the **** up you whinging troll and take your bottlejob lifestyle elsewhere. |
1st CFV : Create unmoderated newsgroup uk.rec.gardening.allotments
On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 23:21:42 -0000, "Anthony"
wrote: "Franz Heymann" wrote in message ... Yes but it WASN'T the FULL QUOTE, which affected its meaning. Who do you think you are bluffing? I have just looked again at the original and it is clear that my quotation conveys the sense of the original. It wasn't YOUR quotation, it belonged to Janet, whom I replied to. Having trouble following the thread Franz? Taking credit for something written by another, theres a name for that! Ah, so is his intent just to split urg, thereby being the opposite of "good for URG" Where does he say he wants to split urg? The actual quote please. What realistically do you think the harm would be? Where did I say that he *said* he wants to split urg? I *deduced* that he wants to split urg. Why else would he be proposing a new group when in fact there are allotmenteers happily contributing to urg? The proposer has not once tried to raise matters of interest to allotmenteers in urg. Indeed, it seems that he has never even lurked in urg, otherwise he would have been aware that allotment issues *are* in fact discussed there. You are making it up as you go along! How on earth can you know that someone has not 'lurked' in a group? That is the most stupid remark you have made so far................... That is total rubbish. Please familiarise yourself with urg's charter and understand it before talking such nonsense. Again, Quote to me where in the charter of urg. it specifies the discussion of allotments. Are you really as silly as you come across? The charter does not say anywhere that growing lavender bushes or raising half hardy seedlings are suitable topics for discussion in urg either. So, are we supposed to avert our eyes when those topics crop up? Not covered under 'flowers or shrubs' then? Wow, no wonder you subscribe to this group, your gardening knowledge is very poor. Now tell me what allotments would come under the heading of? How gripping. If it not specified it is strictly speaking OFF topic. I have read the charter, have you? Can you find it? on another group, where people can talk vegetables, sheds and planning to their hearts content. Urglers are in fact this very minute discussing "sheds and planning to their hearts content." Please look at the list of current threads. What? Just started one have you? You are obviously quite unfamiliar with the contents of urg in the past and now. That does not put you in a good position for defending the setting up of a breakaway group. Use Google, I know how long you have been posting. I bet that scares him. I leave it for others to decide for themselves whether that last paragraph spells out a case for splitting a very active group just to satisfy the whim of a person, or small coterie of folk who have never tried to participate in the existing group. Its not for me to spell out the case for the formation for the new group. Why have you then written this particular note? But I cannot for the life of me understand why you would want to oppose just because the proposer hasn't posted enough to urg in the past, or has chosen to remain on the sidelines. Snip an attempted insult . ******, snip that then! lol The bandwidth issue has been spouted but no evidence has been given to prove that more space would be taken up by the new group. Time and again, you Franz, have stated that all posts to the proposed group would be crossposted, again without a shread of evidence being cited. You are being even more silly than you are. How on earth can evidence have accrued for an event in the future? It was your argument Franz, how soon you forget. Use google to check what you have posted in the past if your memory is failing. All that shows us is you lied about where you live and you are a coward, what have we missed? But for a somewhat analogous case, look at what happened in uk.rec.audio when uk.rec.audio.vinyl and uk.rec.audio.car were spawned. Many reasons therefore against the motion with a distinct lack of evidence. You are being needlessly repetitive. The proposer has been accused of 'Empire Building', I personally think that some people are frightened that their own 'little empire' may be under threat in some way. Still we can agree to differ can't we Franz. You vote your way, I'll vote mine. Of course. Why did you bother to post? Why did you waste bandwidth replying? Shut the **** up you whinging troll and take your bottlejob lifestyle elsewhere. |
1st CFV : Create unmoderated newsgroup uk.rec.gardening.allotments
On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 23:21:42 -0000, "Anthony"
wrote: "Franz Heymann" wrote in message ... Yes but it WASN'T the FULL QUOTE, which affected its meaning. Who do you think you are bluffing? I have just looked again at the original and it is clear that my quotation conveys the sense of the original. It wasn't YOUR quotation, it belonged to Janet, whom I replied to. Having trouble following the thread Franz? Taking credit for something written by another, theres a name for that! Ah, so is his intent just to split urg, thereby being the opposite of "good for URG" Where does he say he wants to split urg? The actual quote please. What realistically do you think the harm would be? Where did I say that he *said* he wants to split urg? I *deduced* that he wants to split urg. Why else would he be proposing a new group when in fact there are allotmenteers happily contributing to urg? The proposer has not once tried to raise matters of interest to allotmenteers in urg. Indeed, it seems that he has never even lurked in urg, otherwise he would have been aware that allotment issues *are* in fact discussed there. You are making it up as you go along! How on earth can you know that someone has not 'lurked' in a group? That is the most stupid remark you have made so far................... That is total rubbish. Please familiarise yourself with urg's charter and understand it before talking such nonsense. Again, Quote to me where in the charter of urg. it specifies the discussion of allotments. Are you really as silly as you come across? The charter does not say anywhere that growing lavender bushes or raising half hardy seedlings are suitable topics for discussion in urg either. So, are we supposed to avert our eyes when those topics crop up? Not covered under 'flowers or shrubs' then? Wow, no wonder you subscribe to this group, your gardening knowledge is very poor. Now tell me what allotments would come under the heading of? How gripping. If it not specified it is strictly speaking OFF topic. I have read the charter, have you? Can you find it? on another group, where people can talk vegetables, sheds and planning to their hearts content. Urglers are in fact this very minute discussing "sheds and planning to their hearts content." Please look at the list of current threads. What? Just started one have you? You are obviously quite unfamiliar with the contents of urg in the past and now. That does not put you in a good position for defending the setting up of a breakaway group. Use Google, I know how long you have been posting. I bet that scares him. I leave it for others to decide for themselves whether that last paragraph spells out a case for splitting a very active group just to satisfy the whim of a person, or small coterie of folk who have never tried to participate in the existing group. Its not for me to spell out the case for the formation for the new group. Why have you then written this particular note? But I cannot for the life of me understand why you would want to oppose just because the proposer hasn't posted enough to urg in the past, or has chosen to remain on the sidelines. Snip an attempted insult . ******, snip that then! lol The bandwidth issue has been spouted but no evidence has been given to prove that more space would be taken up by the new group. Time and again, you Franz, have stated that all posts to the proposed group would be crossposted, again without a shread of evidence being cited. You are being even more silly than you are. How on earth can evidence have accrued for an event in the future? It was your argument Franz, how soon you forget. Use google to check what you have posted in the past if your memory is failing. All that shows us is you lied about where you live and you are a coward, what have we missed? But for a somewhat analogous case, look at what happened in uk.rec.audio when uk.rec.audio.vinyl and uk.rec.audio.car were spawned. Many reasons therefore against the motion with a distinct lack of evidence. You are being needlessly repetitive. The proposer has been accused of 'Empire Building', I personally think that some people are frightened that their own 'little empire' may be under threat in some way. Still we can agree to differ can't we Franz. You vote your way, I'll vote mine. Of course. Why did you bother to post? Why did you waste bandwidth replying? Shut the **** up you whinging troll and take your bottlejob lifestyle elsewhere. |
1st CFV : Create unmoderated newsgroup uk.rec.gardening.allotments
The message
from martin contains these words: /sodding great snip/ Talking of trolls .... what are you doing in this newsgroup? You never seem to have anything to say about gardening and your comments are usually distasteful and inappropriate. I totally disagree. Franz has had lots to say about gardening. It's also clear you don't understand the meaning of troll. A troll is not somebody, who doesn't agree with the clique all the time. Would you like me to send you a pair of scissors? -- Rusty Open the creaking gate to make a horrid.squeak, then lower the foobar. http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/hi-fi/ |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:43 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
GardenBanter